While Atrios might think that Tim Robbin’s newest play, ‘Embedded,’ is ‘obviously satirical,’ the value of such an effort is lost on me. In fact, I think it is pretty damn disgusting. A rundown:
But his play, “Embedded,” profiles the journalists who traveled with and reported on U.S. soldiers in Iraq and features the president’s war cabinet. It was written in Los Angeles and produced in Hollywood.
Robbins portrays journalists as Pentagon puppets, U.S. soldiers as thieves and killers of innocent women and children, and the Bush cabinet as war mongers willing to start a war to escape the negative publicity of the Enron scandal.
In production less than a month, the play received not one, but two glowing reviews from the Los Angeles Times. Robbins’ audience appears to accept his version of the war as the gospel truth.
“It is not propaganda. It is a voice of dissent, which is different than propaganda,” said audience member Kadina Dayal-Halday.
If this is dissent, color me a conformist. If this is right, I don’t mind being wrong. This play, from everything I have read about this venture, seems disrespectful, dishonest, and nothing more than agitprop for the A.N.S.W.E.R. crowd and their willing accomplices.
And to save you time in the comments, I am not saying Robbins and his friends are not patriotic- because we all know however asinine the dissent, it is patriotism! I am, however, calling Robbins an asshole. David Bloom, Michael Kelly, and the hundreds of thousands of soldiers you mock as ‘puppets’ have more character in their little fingers than exists in all of Robbins demented world. I guess the new definition of dissent includes calling everyone you disagree with stupid.
I don’t have a problem with Robbins’ protraying the press as Pentagon puppets. I do have a problem with portraying U.S. soldiers as mindless killing machines (which is insanely far from the truth). If you are a mindless, killing machine in the military, you get taken down.
Even we former gang members know that!
“I guess the new definition of dissent includes calling everyone you disagree with stupid.”
I’ve been doing this for years.
And remember, sure, you soldiers are thieves and killers of innocent women but we support you 100%! We just don’t like Bush policy.
Ah yes. That pesky first ammendment.
I guess I missed the part where I said they “can’t” wrtie, produce, enact this bilge. I guess I missed the part where I made a call for this to be banned.
Fortunately, the 1st amendment allows me the opportunity to call Robbins an asshole.
Sure enough, within 4 posts someone came by to claim that criticizing Mr. Susan Sarandon for writing/producing this tripe is tantamount to censorship.
Has everyone forgotten just what, exactly, the 1st Amendment protects against? Why are the people who know absolutely nothing of the Constitution the first to use it as a shield for all their crass behaviors?
Major exemption to said behavior: full willingness to deprive others of their 2nd Amendment rights.
Ahhh. . . .J C.
The First Amendment states that *Congress* can make no law abridging freedom of speech or expression. The courts have interpreted that to include any government agent.
So. . . If Clear Channel chooses not to play Dixie Chicks songs, that is not a violation of the First Amendment.
If John McCain threatens to take away Clear Channel’s licence because they choose not to play the Dixie Chicks that probably *is* a violation of the First Amendment.
If John Cole calls Robbins an asshole that is *not* a violation of the First Amendment.
If Robbins uses a friendly Congresscritter to get the hosting IP to kick John Cole’s blog off *becase* John Cole called Robbins an asshole, then that probably *is* a violation of the First Amendment.
I have a First Amendment right to call unpatriotic losers unpatriotic losers. I have a First Amendment right to turn off the set when I see their faces or hear their voices. I have a First Amendment right to tell advertisers that run ads on their shows that I turn the set off whenever I see them. They have the right to advertise on those shows or not.
Because none of that involves the government.
The First Amendment guarantees you the right to speak or write. It does not guarantee a right to be read or listened to. And it most definately does not protect you from the consequences of speaking or writing, so long as those consequences come from the private sector.
Got it? (I doubt it.)
“And it most definately does not protect you from the consequences of speaking or writing, so long as those consequences come from the private sector.”
With the caveat that such consequences are themselves legal, of course; I do not believe that Mark L is saying that it’s permissible to commit felonies against people you disagree with, but best to spell that out. :)
I’ll wait to actually see a script or performance before having an opinion, thanks.
The only thing Tim Robbbins knows about being Embedded is when his huge head is embedded up his ass. Which seems to be always.
No one remembers the Edinburgh Scotland production of the Fireman’s eye view of 911 dramatized by Sarandumb and her boy-toy? That of course involved no interviews with actual firemen… but rather ‘dramatized’ what they ‘must have thought’…
Though frankly I’d rather see the French POS ‘dramatizing’ all the fornicating the 911 victims ‘must have’ done as the planes came in…
Pornogra-Fry the victims… how French!
Robbins/Sarandumb and the French… Same same…
Moe — you are right. I should have spelled out that I meant consequences such as loss of sales, being called out for the idjit they are, being criticized, etc. After all the Tom Robbins and A.N.S.W.E.R types are too dim to differentiate between legal and illegal consequences. That’s why you always have to clean up after them when they stage a protest.
A couple of comments. First of all, I am a registered Republican and completely disagree with Tim Robbins and his politics: HOWEVER, I have seen several plays at his theater now (my wife is an avid fan-go figure), and I want to correct a couple of factual errors about the actual content. First of all, “The Guys,” which we saw Mr. Robbins perform in LA with Helen Hunt, was in fact all taken from real interviews with a fireman who was indeed at Ground Zero. It was performed as a staged reading, and was practically a transcript of the interviews. And quite moving, and patriotic, I should add.
Now as for Embedded, Fox News (which I usually trust)is not reporting the play I saw accurately. It was definetely coming from a point of view I disagree with, but I have to say I was shocked at how fair it really was, even for a liberal like Robbins. He really pays tribute to the soldiers out there, and the play itself was humorous and entertaining…not at all like Fox News described it. Kind of makes me question them now. I recommend anyone to see it for themselves. Even though I still totally disagree with his politics it’s actually a patriotic play in its own way.
Can someone explain to me how “dissent” can even exist as a concept, let alone a rationale, in a country with a First Amendment ?